On 07/27/2011 11:17 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 07/27/2011 12:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Please disable the relevant tests too.
> sure.
>
>>> if ((icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)&& (model == MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST ||
>>> model == MEMMODEL_ACQ_REL))
>>> + #ifdef HAVE_s
On 07/27/2011 12:03 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Please disable the relevant tests too.
sure.
if ((icode != CODE_FOR_nothing)&& (model == MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST ||
model == MEMMODEL_ACQ_REL))
+ #ifdef HAVE_sync_mem_thread_fence
+ emit_mem_thread_fence (
On 07/26/2011 06:20 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> * __sync_mem_compare_exchange has the skeleton in place, but not the
> guts. There are some issues that rth and I will work out later, I
> just don't want to hold up the rest of the patch for that. Right now
> it will fail the compare_exchange tests.
This is the main patch which implements all the code for the new
__sync_mem routines which take a memory model as a parameter.
I used the previously approved and checked in __sync_mem_exchange
routine as the model and added all the rest. The only difference is I'm
not adding the x86 patterns y
